80% of worlds's opioids consumption is in USA which has 4,6% of worlds population.
That's what they are doing, waging Third Opium War on their own people.
Intelligence agencies love the drug trade because:
- It's easy (certainly for a state actor) dark money
- It's ubiquitous
- It gives you blackmail material on all sorts of useful people
- It gives you the proven ability to smuggle bulk quantities across the globe
- Who is going to blow the whistle on you?
A reminder that the Taliban only exists because the US funded the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war
To be technical, did the US actually fund the Taliban when it got started? The Pakistani intelligence service did, and the Taliban were only able to take power because of the US-backed Mujahideen alliance rapidly descended into civil war when the Soviets pulled out and the Afghan government fell, but idk.
But wasn't Pakistan also thoroughly a US puppet at this point?
And still is. The US did a soft coup in Pakistan earlier this year
All the armaments the US supplied (most of which actually came from China) to the Mujahideen was distributed by Pakistani intelligence services - that is true. However, the US knew perfectly well who the Pakistanis were giving these weapons to - it had been longstanding US foreign policy SOP to nurture and support far-right, reactionary Islamism as a counter to middle-eastern nationalism. That's the reason the "big bads" in the middle-east now are people like Osama and not people like Arafat.
LOL. Raises questions for whom? Libs? Everyone knows what the fucking USA was doing all along. Except the libs.
NB: both USA Rs and Ds are both liberal in their political philosophy and are both subject to this critique.
During the time of the US occupation of Afghanistan, opium from the region comprised a full 90% of the world's heroin supply. So I would say "the same thing they've been doing since at least the days of the Vietnam War and the Golden Triangle."
lmao, no it doesn’t. the US didn’t go to Afghanistan to eradicate opium. the US didn’t give a shit about it at all, lmao.
do tankies so blindly hate the US that they’ll give the Taliban a bj just to try to make the US look bad? wow...
The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War is a summary of the Washington Post's reporting on Afghanistan, specifically on the US government's own internal assessments from all levels of the military and political administration. In it, you'll find this quote:
Of all the failures in Afghanistan, the war on opium ranked among the most feckless. During two decades, the United States spent more than $9 billion on a dizzying array of programs to deter Afghanistan from supplying the world with heroin. None of the measures worked. In many cases, they made things worse.
The US doesn't need "tankies" or anyone else to make themselves look bad as far as the Afghan drug trade goes.
lmao, so? we get it. you hate the US. what’s your point? just to come here and whine about it?
Ha you were conclusively proven wrong and didn't even blink. A brain so smooth no facts can get stuck on it.
spoiler
Post another 🤓 "I was on the debate team" graphic, that's how discussions work
Ha you were conclusively proven wrong and didn’t even blink
oh, you mean here?
the US didn’t give a shit about it at all
ya got me there. they did care. still doesn’t prove that it’s why the US was there, and, in fact, several of the linked sources directly state to the contrary against claims that it was.
too bad it’s meaningless and - like always - you’re wrong. lmao
Lol so you initially ignore being wrong, then acknowledge you were wrong somewhere else, then say "well that was meaningless" when you go back to claim you were adult enough to say you missed on that one? ...What?
Go back to reddit if you're going to be a debatelord
wow, you moved those goalposts so fast and with such double-standards, I’m amazed you didn’t snap your own neck with those mental gymnastics. impressive!
you've said so many of the funny words you've gotta be a bit
I live in a US colony, so yeah I can be pretty fucking pissed about them
This flew over your head but it is heavily implied
are logical fallacies all you guys know?
Show
That’s not the creation of a straw man
I saw this in another comment, I think it works here:
“nuh-uh” isn’t a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
hat is an accusation I’m making of you, specifically, based on the fact that your comment in no way addressed the idea
just because you don’t understand (or refuse to acknowledge) what I said doesn’t make me wrong or you right.
If you read my comment you’ll see that I also address your “argument” directly.
with a logical fallacy. I pointed this out
Show
Invoking the concept of a strawman when someone says you're not paying attention
That's just plain fucking stupid.
Who said I was arguing with you, dipshit? What would the point of that be? I've seen how you act. You ignore literally everything everyone says and post clippings from a high school textbook you clearly never read and don't understand.
And what the fuck would I be making an argument about in the first place? You aren't talking about anything. Shame on my comrades for engaging with you for anything other than to bully your ass for being a blight on the conversation other people are having around you.
Still +5 upvotes on this six hours later, huh?
Weird how the only people who find value in your comments only ever show up right when you make them.
Difference is I explicitly said I wasn't arguing. If you think you're winning an argument... what's it about?
You know we are leftists here. You can just say you are into your wife sleeping with other men. We respect a diversity of lifestyles. You don't have to do the whiskey overcompensation persona thing here. We can accept and respect who you are.
you have a talent for self-contradictory speech. the way you mix the word “respect” with overflowing disrespect, how you espouse leftism and diversity while speaking the sexism and misogyny of a fascist… it’s artful.
Wtf are you talking about? Nobody said anything sexist or misogynyst. Words have meaning. Saying that you're into cuckoldry has nothing to do with being sexist to women. It's rude to you yes but fascist? Come the fuck on. Stop saying socialists are fascist for fuck's sake it's unbelievably cringe and nobody is buying it.
the way you mix the word “respect” with overflowing disrespect
Well excuse him for trying to make a lib feel at home
It is artful. That is the point. Further, the only sexism I talked about is the internalized negative self image that would lead a person to think 'whiskey pickle' is anything other than a cringe attempt to develop a self identity by subverting the worst societie's worst instincts. Most of us here have done worse, but we grew stronger and passed through that phase. Join us.
lmao, so? we get it. you hate learning. what’s your point? just to come here and whine about it?
I’ve certainly learned a lot about hexbear trolls and what triggers them: getting called out as trolls and images of logical fallacies. just look at you!
👍
The only thing logical fallacies trigger for us is our funny bones
Nothing funnier than a fool who thinks shouting "logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy!" over and over again wins any argument instead of just making them look like the asshole they are
*removed externally hosted image*
I'm sorry for my alt's poor behavior
They were directly responding to your words, to disprove them.
except they didn’t disprove them. US Marines also peed a lot while they were there, but it’s not why they are there. it proves nothing.
Show
Do you really not see the connection between the comments?
correlation ≠ causation
You’ve moved the goalposts, but no matter.
“I know you are but what am I?” is not a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5. (borrowed form another comment)
Operation Enduring Freedom was sold as a war on terrorism
see, you even admit that it wasn’t about opium.
the US repeatedly cited opium as a target of the war because they claimed it funded the Taliban.
you’re welcome to cite sources to back up your claims. and I’ll be happy to point out how the timeline doesn’t support your assertions that the war was about opium, it just happened to be something the US did while we were there.
Or did you think it was retaliation for 9/11 or something?
what I think is irrelevant. that facts are what matter.
I have American friends who died defending those poppy fields. I remember it all very well.
irrelevant. present facts. not anecdotes or your feelings.
Also do feel free to explain how this is any way relevant to the conversation:
correlation ≠ causation
I have, repeatedly. your inability/refusal to understand is not my problem.
You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.
That my dear good m'sir is a classic case of cherry picking.
Show
You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.
nope, just an example. you’re not very good at this
We also didn't threaten to kill the farmers for growing it. No shit the Taliban was successful. Comply or die. They're the ones who were profiting from it anyway. Now that they're in charge again, religion trumps financial needs.
I'm pretty sure the Talibans (not to defend them, mind you), were already cracking down on poppy farming before 9/11 and the subsequent decade long war.
So how were they benefitting? Or do you mean to say the US and allied forces allowed mass poppy crop farming that was then utilized by the Taliban to fund itself? You know there is an alternative hypothesis: the US and other occupation allied forces tolerated poppy farming to pacify and win over tribal chiefs and keep corrupt Afghan officials squarely on their side. Maybe both were happening, who is to say.
Financed their war effort. We valued the whole hearts and minds over destroying farmers livelihood.
Lol, winning hearts and minds by protecting child rapists
Average soldier wanted to deal with that. It was high command keeping that shit going because they wanted to keep tribal leaders happy.
Lmao, how can you justify this shit? Do you really think American was actually trying to win hearts and minds when even you admit high command was protecting child rapists?
That's even worse? Your senior officers are supposed to be the ones doing the right thing.
No no you see the rank and file totally wanted to stop all that child SA, but alas they simply had to follow orders
winning the hearts and minds of the people we brutally conquered and ruled over for 20 years
Quite a few would disagree with that view, giving how many fled their own country when the Taliban took over again. But hey, don't let that narrative ruin your perspective. Lol
Of course people who cooperate with occupiers usually want out when the occupation ends. They don't want to face the consequences of selling out their country.
And of course "when people leave a Bad Country it's for political reasons, when they leave a Good Country it's for economic reasons" applies.
it must be easy to say whatever you want when you don’t have to worry about facts, lol
The us was using opium as a weapon of war against russia and iran. Its well known and the public health concequences in both those countries were horrific
But since mexico has orders of mag itude more state capacity than the taliban their failure to solve opium problem makes one almost certain the us goverment is also behind that.
You got a source on that? Last I checked Opium is an excellent cash crop that the Taliban used to fund their guerilla war with the US. Now that the Americans are out there is no point to keep growing it.
USA frooze the National Reserves of Afgahnistan after their Ho Chi Ming City Replay , thereby actually punging Afgahnistan into Starvation crisis und accelerating the switch from Cash Crop to Food Production , this has now increased the Water Use in the helmaz river valley thereby is leading to borderclashes with iran over the water use.
Not really. The river was also closed to iran during the american ocupation. In fact the taliban actually released watter at some point. Less than they should have but more than the previous regime.
The border clashes have nothing to do with that and more to do with the taliban organization being run more like a mcdonalds than a regular state. Sometimes a franchise owner decide they want to invade iran and get into a shootout. But the central command in unaware of that.
The source for that claim is entirely from the US state department. Not to mention some expert disputed that claim
"The estimated all-time high for opium production was set in 2017 at 9,900 tons worth some $1.4 billion in sales by farmers or roughly 7% of Afghanistan's GDP, the UNODC reported."
"Mansfield says his field studies show the most the Taliban can earn from illicit opiates is about $40 million annually"
So the Taliban made at most 40 million per year while the entire country (under US occupation and control) made over 1 billion per year
Just search opium in russia or opium in iran. You will see that its a huge problem there. You will also see both countries complaining to the us that they are maliciously increasing opium production.
I had a bunch of friends who went to Afghanistan/Iraq and they were protecting poppy and marijuana fields
Well, the Canadian weed legalization makes a lot more sense all of a sudden.
Lmao
You mean the US wasn't trying to eliminate heroin production
Show
"...but at what cost?!?!" These lizards deserve a whole lot of things.
Mint Press News – Bias and Credibility
Show
FAR LEFT BIAS
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate Mint Press Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the publication of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience anti-Israel propaganda, poor sourcing, failed fact checks, and false claims.
Detailed Report
- Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracies, Pseudoscience, Poor Sources, Failed Fact Checks
- Bias Rating: FAR LEFT
- Factual Reporting: LOW
- Country: USA
- Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
- Media Type: Website
- Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
- MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
Mint Press News is an independent Minnesota-based news website launched in 2012 by Mnar Muhawesh. It covers political, economic, foreign affairs, and environmental issues. According to their about page, “We focus our coverage on issues relating to the effects of special interest groups, big business and lobbying efforts and how they shape policies at home and abroad, including American foreign policy. Through the lens of social justice and human rights, we report on how these dynamics drive our foreign affairs and impact the world, and examine the effects they have on our democracy and freedoms as defined by the constitution.”
Analysis / Bias
Mint Press presents news with a strong left-leaning bias in story selection. Headlines and articles use moderately loaded language like this: NFL Freezes Policy Barring Players From Kneeling During Anthem. This particular story is republished from the conspiracy website ZeroHedge. Typically, Mint Press sources their information, but sometimes it is from Mixed factual or conspiracy websites. In general, story selection moderately favors the left, such as this Trump Administration Opens Door for Corporate Attack on Vulnerable Wildlife.
shame on Time?
also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline...
do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?
sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.
oh, so when you get caught in a lie, you just hurl insults rather than admit to it. hardly a surprise…
notice how i didn't prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that's because i didn't use any. ditto this post.
are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?
woooow
you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.
the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party 'bias checker' (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.
how does one have such a punchable face over the internet oh my god
Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it's not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration?
Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.
Of course it’s not the exact same article.
so you even admit that they lied
The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.
America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.
What conclusion do these facts support?
What conclusion do these facts support?
that you will draw biased conclusions and assert them free of any factual evidence to back them up.
Show
You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.
I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.
So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?
pseudoscience anti-Israel propaganda
Lol what is this even supposed to mean
It means they peddle far-left conspiracy theories like Palestinian children needing water and food to survive which is something that Israeli scientists have debunked
I suspect it’s just a typo and should say:
pseudoscience, anti-Israel propaganda
anti what propaganda, I don't see a word there
Others are arguing with facts, you aren't paying attention, you're showing clip art of the scarecrow's phallus. We're not in debate club, you're not a teacher, I don't respect you. The fact that you keep trying to turn your nose up doesn't make you look like a genius, it makes you look more like a fucking liberal. cause you are, that's what you. And you'll achieve jack shit because of it. have fun
ingborrowed form another comment: “nuh-uh!” isn’t a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
you’re showing clip art of the scarecrow’s phallus
wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes
that said, if you can’t debate your way around “clip art” and the best you have is the argument of a 5-year-old, that’s just an admission that you have no valid argument at all. that explains the whining and childish insults.
rage on, sad kid.
wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes
holy shit, this is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. also "I'm not arguing with you." "Wow, your arguments are shit." what a brilliant dialogue. like leonardo da vinki wrote it.
I think subtly the voros twins' best bit was calling Timon from the lion king "time-on"
holy shit, this is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.
I knew your standards were low, but wow
I have higher standards and I think you're more pathetic than funny
Is that better?
I embrace the far left bias
if you don't, I wonder which bias you accept
We need a bot for this. Synopsis should be added to the tldr-bot or something.
it's just a test of how much the position agrees with the people running the website haha
there's no such thing as "bias-free" propaganda, and propaganda isn't inherently subversive
why? read the article, and if you can't tell the bias that's on you.
ya know, I’ve looked into it. one of the biggest problems with bots is that they have to be hosted from somewhere. that’s my first hiccup.
I’d LOVE to make this a bot, but I don’t know where I’d host it from.
Learn to read. If you can't be assed to actually read the article you're commenting on then go back to le 100 wholesome keanu reddit.
Holy shit is this a bit? Do people on here really still believe in a neutral or unbiased press? Shouldn't virtually every event from the Iraq war onward have already disillusioned you of that?
Damn, this website really gets your goat doesn't it?
No, it doesn't raise questions. We knew back in 2003 that there was never a long-term plan. The point was to kill a guy, and then to do some military spending. A major success, on those lines.
The Taliban are terrible, though.
Turns out they were also attempting to monopolize the worlds heroin supply too, a major success on those lines too.
Whitey Bulger: protected by the FBI for decades while being the biggest heroin importer in the northeast
Freeway Ricky Ross: supplied by the CIA with coke from the Contras, in a relationship mediated by a DEA informant
Golden Triangle heroin trade: controlled by the CIA for decades after the Korean War, arming and protecting manufacturers and traffickers, with heroin flown on CIA planes
The French Connection: French gangsters were protected by the CIA and allowed to import heroin to their primary market, the US, in exchange for keeping the port of Marseille out of the control of French communists
La Corporacion: the biggest Bolivian cocaine cartel, the "GM of cocaine", started with the cooperation and protection of the CIA according to a DEA agent whose investigations into them were repeatedly thwarted by the State Dept and CIA
the USA has been doing this shit for a long time
Oh, but the USA has changed, they're tHe gOoD gUyS now lmfao
Hmmm, what could this mountain of evidence possibly mean?
Well, what else is there to say? You've gotta hand it to the Taliban.
@lemmy.ml
um ackshually, fact check
